Which of the following is an example of an emotion-focused coping strategy?

Models of Coping

Specific coping strategies (e.g., 'think of different ways to solve the problem,' 'tell myself it doesn't matter') are generally grouped into a variety of coping subtypes to describe categories of adolescents' coping responses. Examples of common subtypes are problem solving, information seeking, cognitive restructuring, emotional expression or ventilation, distraction, distancing, avoidance, wishful thinking, acceptance, seeking social support, and denial. But, coping strategies are not viewed simply as a large collection of possible responses to stressors with arbitrary groupings. Rather, coping subtypes, and even broader dimensions that comprise sets of these subtypes, are derived based on conceptual models of coping. Researchers then use statistical techniques such as 'factor analysis' to determine whether the conceptual model that groups together coping subtypes is appropriate. We now examine the most common models of coping that have been applied in the adolescent coping literature.

Richard Lazarus and Susan Folkman theorized that coping could be divided based on its function, into problem-focused coping and emotion-focused coping. Problem-focused coping includes those strategies that involve acting on the environment (e.g., seeking support from others to solve the problem) or the self (e.g., cognitive restructuring). Emotion-focused coping includes those strategies used to regulate one's stressful emotions (e.g., using substances, emotional ventilation). One study found that older, as compared to younger adolescents, tended to use more emotion-focused coping strategies, whereas age was not related to the use of problem-focused strategies. Critics of the problem-focused versus emotion-focused coping framework argue that these two dimensions are overly broad and some strategies may reflect both types of functions (e.g., seeking support from others may be used in the service of solving the problem or to soothe one's feelings). Also, strategies that represent very different types of coping and may be associated with very different outcomes have been subsumed under the same broad category. For example, some argue that the explanation for the finding that emotion-focused coping is often associated with negative outcomes may be attributed to the overrepresentation of negative emotion-focused items (e.g., cry about it, substance use) that represent this category rather than potentially positive emotion-focused coping strategies (e.g., journaling, sharing feelings with someone) that could be included as emotion-focused strategies. However, in spite of its limitations, this early categorization provided a useful stepping-off point for future conceptualizations of coping. And, Richard Lazarus was one of the first psychologists to discuss coping as an ongoing, dynamic process.

Susan Roth and Lawrence Cohen later conceptualized coping in terms of the direction of the coping responses in relation to the threat or stressor. Approach coping is any behavioral, cognitive, or emotional activity that is directed toward a threat (e.g., problem solving or seeking information). Avoidance is any behavioral, cognitive, or emotional activity directed away from a threat (e.g., denial, withdrawal). In general, use of more approach and less avoidance coping has been associated with more positive outcomes. But, some strategies grouped under avoidance coping may vary in their effectiveness. For example, both cognitive avoidance (e.g., not thinking about the stressor) and distraction (e.g., engage in other activities to avoid thinking about the problem) are both avoidance strategies. Yet, avoiding thoughts and feelings associated with an event may increase the individual's distress over time, whereas distraction (especially distraction techniques that involve engaging in social activities with others) may be effective in dealing with particularly intense feelings and may serve to decrease distress. In addition, critics of this model argue that one cannot always determine that more approach and less avoidance coping is ideal in all cases. Avoidance strategies like distraction might have the benefit of preventing the distress level from becoming too overwhelming; this might be most appropriate in the beginning stages in reaction to a severe stressor. Approach strategies have the benefits of allowing for appropriate action to be taken after distress levels have subsided somewhat and when appropriate action can be taken. So, ideally, most coping researchers agree that it is best to have a flexible coping style which may involve using strategies from different dimensions across the coping process, depending on the current demands of the situation.

A more recent and comprehensive model, the Responses to Stress model, developed by Bruce Compas and colleagues, distinguishes among three major coping dimensions, with each dimension comprised of more specific coping subtypes. The first dimension is voluntary coping (i.e., coping responses that involve conscious effort, e.g., problem solving, cognitive restructuring) versus involuntary coping (i.e., temperamentally based and conditioned reactions, e.g., emotional numbing, rumination, intrusive thoughts). The second dimension involves responses of engagement (i.e., responses directed toward a stressor or one's reaction to a stressor, e.g., problem solving) versus disengagement (i.e., responses directed away from a stressor or one's reaction to a stressor, e.g., distraction). Voluntary coping responses can be distinguished further along a third dimension: primary control coping strategies (i.e., those strategies aimed at directly altering objective conditions, e.g., problem solving, emotional expression) versus secondary control coping strategies (i.e., those strategies focused on adaptation to the problem, e.g., acceptance, cognitive restructuring). Voluntary coping responses within this framework are viewed as goal-directed efforts to maintain, increase, or alter one's control over the environment or the self.

As coping models have become more elaborated, coping research is continuously moving toward the view of coping as a multifaceted process instead of coping subtypes as mutually exclusive categories. Recent coping research also reflects awareness that coping with a stressor is a dynamic process that involves flexibility in strategies across the coping process, depending on the current demands of the situation.

Definitions

Given the current prominence of transactional views, coping is often defined as “constantly changing cognitive and behavioral efforts to manage specific external and/or internal demands that are appraised as taxing or exceeding the resources of the person” (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984, p. 141). Coping incorporates processes from many levels. It reflects evolution; humans come prepared to recognize and react to environmental demands in ways that promote survival. Coping has a tightly integrated physiological, psychological, and social basis. Many features of psychological functioning, such as emotions, motivation, attention, volition, cognition, and communication are organized in ways that allow them to contribute to coping. For example, emotions signal and organize interactions of adaptive significance. Many aspects of social relationships and cultural systems also contribute to coping. For example, attachment relationships provide a safe haven of protection during times of distress.

Coping has both normative and individual difference features. Normatively, humans are prepared to cope adaptively. In fact, stress is likely necessary for the kinds of sustained constructive interactions that facilitate development. However, human responsiveness to stress can also represent a vulnerability; too much stress can overwhelm and damage people. In addition, there are enormous differences in how physiological, psychological, social, and cultural resources for coping are distributed across individuals and social groups.

Finally, coping is a process that unfolds over time. Coping takes real time; any specific stressful transaction involves sequences of moment-to-moment interactions. Coping also takes places over episodic time; dealing with demands encompasses a protracted series of specific real-time transactions. As noted by White, “Described not inappropriately in military metaphors, adaptation often calls for delay, strategic retreat, regrouping of forces, abandoning of untenable positions, seeking fresh intelligence, and deploying new weapons” (White, 1974, p. 50). Coping also changes over developmental time: the means of coping as well as the personal and social resources brought to bear during coping efforts show radical changes and qualitative shifts across the lifespan (Aldwin, 2007; Skinner and Zimmer-Gembeck, 2007a).

Given its complexity and centrality to adaptation, it is not surprising that coping has been approached from a wide range of theoretical perspectives. It has been defined as a specific person-context transaction, personality in action under stress, a repertoire of strategies, a hierarchically organized set of ego processes, an indicator of competence, a function of emotion, an outcome of temperament, an expression of stress physiology, and a quality of action regulation. Although it has been suggested that coping is primarily a manifestation of other phenomena, most researchers vigorously argue that coping processes have an independent causal status. More specifically, they maintain that coping makes a material difference to how stressful interactions are resolved and is a key factor influencing long-term mental and physical heath, well-being, and development in the face of adversity.

1.3 Coping Processes

In contrast to the two previous views, the coping process approach argues that coping is responsive to both environmental demands and personal factors such as values and beliefs. As such, coping strategies are flexible and unfold over time, either in response to changing appraisals or as a function of developmental processes. Coping strategies are proactive and are not simply responses to environmental contingencies. One can appraise a situation as benign, in which case no coping is needed, or as involving threat, harm, or loss or as a challenge, all of which may evoke various coping strategies. Because this approach emphasizes the flexible nature of coping, the focus is on how individuals cope with particular situations and, as mentioned earlier, several studies have shown that coping strategies do vary across situations.

There are many different conceptualizations of coping strategies, but the five general types of coping strategies are problem-focused coping, emotion-focused coping, social support, religious coping, and meaning making. Problem-focused coping, also called instrumental action, encompasses behaviors and cognitions aimed at solving the problem, such as seeking information, taking direct action, or breaking the problem down into more manageable pieces, a strategy referred to as “chunking.” Sometimes, delaying or suppressing action can be a useful problem-focused strategy. For example, purposefully delaying a direct confrontation with someone may lead to a more rapid solution to a problem than acting in anger.

Emotion-focused coping includes a wide range of strategies that are directed toward managing one’s emotional response to the problem. Some examples are avoidance, withdrawal, expressing emotion, and the use of substances such as alcohol or food. As might be expected, avoidance strategies are often associated with poor outcomes, but other emotion-focused strategies, such as expressing emotion through journals or writing, may be associated with positive outcomes.

Social support involves seeking both emotional and concrete aid from others or advice. The outcome of these types of coping strategies often depends on the social context. For example, confiding in others after a trauma is generally associated with better outcomes, but if the confidant responds negatively, emotional distress may be increased.

The study of religious coping is relatively new. It can contain elements of social support or problem-focused and emotion-focused coping, and it seeks to conserve or transform meaning in the face of adversity. In general, religious coping is associated with positive outcomes, but it does have negative guises. Belief in a punitive God, or feeling that one has been treated unfairly or been deserted, may be associated with much poorer outcomes.

The final category, meaning making, is the least well understood. It is sometimes referred to as “cognitive reappraisal” and involves trying to see the positive or meaningful aspects of the situation, especially with severe or chronic stressors. As with religious coping, how one goes about making meaning may affect its association with outcomes. Simply asking “Why me?” may be associated with poorer outcomes, but coming to realize how a problem fits into the larger pattern of one’s life may be a painful process but in the end may be one way in which individuals grow from stressful or traumatic experiences.

Coping Strategies

Coping strategies are behavioral and cognitive tactics used to manage crises, conditions, and demands that are appraised as distressing. An important development in coping research was the creation of Robert Folkman and Susan Lazarus’ Ways of Coping scale. This scale was devised to assess the extent to which one uses one of two general types of coping. Problem-focused coping is directed at problem solving or taking action to change the source of the stress. Emotion-focused coping, in contrast, focuses on reducing or managing the emotional distress that results from the crisis. Some emotion-focused coping strategies include wishful thinking, distancing, avoidance, and positive reappraisal. The effectiveness of any particular coping strategy varies according to the situation, and there is not one generally accepted way for older adults to cope with stress. Moreover, most crises warrant both types of coping.

Problem-focused strategies are typically invoked when constructive action can be taken, whereas emotion-focused coping is used when people feel that the situation cannot change and must be endured. In general, problem-focused coping strategies are considered more effective for managing crises than emotion-focused tactics. Persons who use active coping strategies typically view themselves as in control, hold positive self-views, and adopt a proactive, optimistic and self-reliant approach to managing life stressors. In contrast, those who rely on emotion-focused coping strategies, including self-blame, avoidance, or even the use of drugs or alcohol, cope less well than those who adopt active strategies, such as seeking social support. However, for older adults, problem-focused coping is not always effective when a loss is irrevocable. Rather, emotion-focused strategies such as the positive reappraisal of a permanent condition or situation are associated with enhanced mental health.

Abstract

Coping skills include a range of actions and adaptations in response to stressful experiences, which can be critical for determining pathways of resilience and vulnerability in children and adolescents. This article describes major theories of stress and coping concentrating on a developmental motivational theory of coping. Following this background, four topics are addressed, including (1) the coping skills used by children and adolescents and how they change with age; (2) the impact of coping skills on adjustment and wellbeing, extending this to consider other processes and competencies (e.g., perceived control) integral to understanding the impact of coping skills; (3) the capacity for coping flexibility and its potential for new research directions; and (4) the evidence of coping skills as mechanisms of the effectiveness of interventions and therapies for at-risk youth.

Coping style

Coping plays an integral role in psychological adjustment to many types of disease and injury, including amputation. Coping strategies can vary widely between individuals and may be impacted by cause of amputation. Compared to those who lose a limb to disease, individuals with traumatic amputations tend to employ avoidance as a coping strategy (e.g., not viewing the disfigured leg), which is in turn associated with greater stump pain, increased distress, and withdrawal.

Active and task-oriented coping strategies, characterized by problem solving and planning to overcome barriers, have been found to aid in psychosocial adjustment. Cognitive strategies, such as reframing the meaning of the amputation (e.g., viewing amputation as a lifesaving event rather than a life-limiting event), can also be of benefit. A study of 104 patients with lower extremity amputation reported that 49% found positive meaning or noted positive aspects related to amputation such as improved attitudes toward life and independence; positive meaning was associated with higher ratings of physical capabilities, better adjustment to physical limitations, and lower activity restriction. Passive or avoidant coping strategies, including catastrophizing (e.g., imagining the worst-case scenario for the future) and cognitive disengagement (e.g., not thinking about the amputation and its impact), are likely to be less adaptive. Despite these observations, few studies have examined coping strategies in relation to body image among individuals with amputations. Nonetheless, coping style does appear to be an important factor in determining long-term adjustment to amputation and related appearance changes.

Coping strategies

Coping strategies, such as active coping, active confrontation, “fighting spirit,” and denial, have been related to changes in physical health during HIV-infection. The use of active coping was associated with decreased symptom development in HIV-infected gay men. A “fighting spirit” coping strategy also predicted less symptom development, whereas denial coping predicted a greater number of HIV-related symptoms over a 12-month period. Other coping strategies such as avoidance and denial have also been associated with declines in immune function in HIV+ men. During the stressful period of HIV antibody testing, greater avoidance of distressing AIDS-related thoughts predicts greater anxiety, depression, and confusion as well as lower lymphocyte proliferative responses and NKCC after notification of positive serostatus. Increases in the use of denial during the postnotification period also predict a faster progression to AIDS over a 2-year follow-up period. In another cohort of HIV+ men, greater use of denial predicted faster progression to AIDS over a 7.5-year period. Gay men with AIDS who used a strategy called realistic acceptance showed a shorter survival time than those not endorsing this strategy. Realistic acceptance appears to reflect excessive rumination and focus on HIV-related matters, almost to the exclusion of many other facets of life. It may be that while denial is maladaptive and predictive of poorer health outcomes, obsessing and ruminating about the disease may also have negative health ramifications. Newer work has produced evidence that greater use of distraction as a coping strategy predicts a slower subsequent course of disease over a 7-year follow-up period. Distraction here reflects an effort to focus on living and pursuing activities that are meaningful rather than denying the existence of the infection or refusing to focus on it excessively. This sort of balance between acceptance and nonrumination has also been identified as a common trait of those who are long-term survivors of HIV infection and AIDS.

8.04.3.3 Coping with Illness

Coping is defined as what people do to try to minimize stress and is commonly seen in health psychology as problem-focused, that is, directed at reducing the threats and losses of the illness, or emotion-focused, namely directed at reducing the negative emotional consequences. Perhaps the best known measure of coping is the ways of Coping Questionnaire, developed by Folkman and Lazarus (1980). They used factor-analytic procedures to establish the dimensional structure, but later analyses have produced different numbers and types of factors.

Many different coping styles have been identified and measured and contrasts are made between avoidant and attention coping, between active and passive coping, and between behavioral and cognitive coping. The COPE (Carver, Scheier, & Weintraub, 1989) attempts to represent all of these aspects of coping in a multidimensional inventory giving scores on 13 conceptually distinct types of coping. Further, the measure can be used to assess coping style, a dispositional measure of habitual ways of coping, or to assess coping strategy, the methods of coping used to address a specific stressor such as a current illness. The disadvantage of the comprehensiveness of the measure is that it is quite long, appears repetitive, and can seem burdensome to people who are ill. Carver (1997) has therefore published a shortened version which has proved more acceptable while retaining the multidimensional features of the measure.

Other measures address specific forms of coping, for example, Miller's (1987) measure of monitoring and blunting, or they deal with specific clinical conditions, such as Watson et al.'s (1988) assessment of coping styles employed by people with cancer.

Investigators choosing a measure of coping need to consider the compatibility of the measures with their theoretical perspective, the range of scores available, the acceptability of the measure to their clinical group and, possibly, the need to measure not only coping with the illness, but also coping with stressful forms of health-care.

What is an example of emotion

Which of the following is an emotion

What are some emotional coping strategies?

What is emotion